Meta is testing an app that uses AI to automate bedtime stories for children. The future is here, folks — and boy, is it depressing.
The app, first caught by 9to5Mac, is called “StoryKit.” (It’s not yet available in the US; Meta confirmed to TechCrunch that it’s currently testing StoryKit in pilot countries.) Per a webpage for the app, parents pick a character either by creating one or taking a “photo of their favorite toy or person to bring them to life,” then describe a setting or world for the story to take place in. They can also ask the story to include a specific lesson or moral, which the app says will allow it to “weave in values like kindness, courage, or empathy without it feeling like a lecture.”
The resulting story can be read aloud by a human — or, of course, an AI voice can narrate instead. According to Meta, this is a lifeline for exhausted parents.
“Tired after a long day but want to give your kids a special bedtime story?” reads the app’s webpage. “StoryKit uses Al to help you create personalized bedtime stories in seconds. No more guilt about screen time. Just beautiful, unique stories made with love.”
Let’s be real: this app is amazingly sad. There are a lot of busy and exhausted parents, but outsourcing the emotional and creative labor of bedtime stories to machines is a wildly bleak proposition. Meta claims that this app will help parents feel less guilty about their kids’ screen time, but is having an AI voice read an AI-generated bedtime story to your kids that much different from plopping them in front of an iPad?
There are also countless human-written children’s books out there to choose from, if parents don’t enjoy coming up with stories with their kids on the spot. If you’re feeling guilty about screens, perhaps the answer is paper-bound books, not robots.
All in all: kids’ bedtime stories — bonding moments between parents and their children, in which parents can foster creativity and impart what they believe to be important lessons — aren’t exactly spaces begging for tech disruption. In fact, this is an area where we probably need less tech, not more.
Remember when Meta was planning to charge a $20 monthly subscription fee for the smart glasses feature that lets people hear each other more clearly - even though that feature runs locally on your glasses and doesn't require the cloud? Meta has paused those plans, spokesperson Tyler Yee confirms to The Verge.
The company is not giving up on the idea of a subscription fee for certain features - that's still moving forward. Yee confirms that "some premium features will be subscription-based over time."
But Conversation Focus, the accessibility feature, "will remain available for free through our Early Access Program for early testers while w …
Meta's smart glasses have been a PR headache for the company. Public backlash has been swift, and fierce; people are concerned about the erosion of privacy and expansion of surveillance. Some especially bad actors are using the glasses to film themselves "pranking" random strangers. Women have become unsuspecting social media content for men filming themselves hitting on them without their knowledge. When your product is being referred to as "pervert glasses," you have a problem on your hands.
On Thursday, Business Insider reported that Meta was taking the fairly extraordinary step of banning some content filmed with Meta glasses from the c …
Meta introduced a standalone app for sellers on its Facebook Marketplace platform, adding AI tools and sales management features to enable merchants to manage listings, reach buyers, and grow their business.
Sellers, the dedicated app, brings together listing management, buyer communications, inventory tracking and sales insights, while syncing with existing Marketplace accounts so users can carry over listings, messages and sales history.
The new app includes AI-powered listing creation, allowing sellers to upload photos and have Meta AI generate details including titles, descriptions, suggested pricing and categories. It also provides a unified inbox for buyer conversations and analytics covering views, clicks, messages and completed sales.
Meta said its original platform Marketplace, which launched a decade ago integrated directly in Facebook, now handles 430 million item listings each month globally. The existing Marketplace platform will remain available through Facebook, with a web version being tested for Seller app users. Android testing is also underway.
Seller is available through the App Store for US users aged 18 and over.
The launch comes as Meta seeks to expand Marketplace’s capabilities and compete more directly with established e-commerce platforms including eBay. The company has previously focused on improving commerce and community features across its platform, including the release of a dedicated Facebook groups app called Forum in May.
Meta today announced Facebook Verified, a free badge designed to confirm that a Facebook profile belongs to a real person rather than an AI-generated fake.
The feature uses a selfie-based verification process: users record a short video selfie, which Meta checks against their existing profile photos to confirm a match. Meta says the process is free and typically takes just a few minutes to complete, though accounts must meet the company's trust and safety standards to qualify.
Facebook Verified is limited to users 18 and older who are in good standing with Meta's Community Standards around fraud, scams, and deceptive practices, and who show no evidence of inauthentic behavior. The badge is not available for Pages or ProMode accounts, positioning it squarely as a personal-profile feature rather than one aimed at creators or businesses.
Once verified, the badge will appear on Marketplace, Dating, Groups, and Profile, with Meta planning to extend it to Feed posts over time. There is no subscription fee for the feature, and the badge carries across the platform once a user has completed the one-time verification process.
The launch is separate from Meta Verified, the company's existing paid subscription that bundles a verified badge with extras like impersonation protection and direct account support. Facebook Verified is free and narrower in scope, aimed specifically at signaling humanity rather than offering premium account features.
Facebook Verified is rolling out in phases, starting in select markets, with Meta planning to expand availability globally over time.
Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses are quickly earning a far less flattering nickname: “pervert glasses.”
A new investigation has exposed how highly personal videos captured by users — including people undressing or using the bathroom — are being sent to contractors in Kenya for AI training, often without the subjects’ knowledge. The revelations have sparked widespread outrage online, with many accusing the devices of turning everyday wearers into unwitting voyeurs and reigniting deep concerns about privacy in the age of always-on AI surveillance.
Automated systems designed to blur faces often failed, the contractors claimed, effectively giving them a front row seat of somebody’s most intimate moments.
“I don’t think they know, because if they knew they wouldn’t be recording,” one contractor said.
Many have quickly embraced a term for the devices that’s presumably sending Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg into paroxysms of fury: “pervert glasses.”
“Glad people are settling on the term ‘pervert glasses,’” another agreed. “Bonus points if you also say it while posting a picture of Mark Zuckerberg or call them Mark Zuckerberg’s pervert glasses.”
“Not a fan of Mark Zuckerberg’s pervert glasses,” wrote yet another. “I would prefer technology to make it more difficult to skeez, creep or perv on the world. I would like tech to protect me from creeps, not smooth the runway for them.”
The threat of simple smart glasses being used for surveillance isn’t some dystopian vision of a far future. Researchers have already shown that Meta’s smart glasses can be used to instantly reveal the identities of strangers in public — tech that Meta has reportedly been working on itself.
All told, smart glasses are a product category rife with uncomfortable connotations, especially when worn in the presence of others who may not know they may be recorded.
MacDailyNews Take: Unless their goal was to trash their reputation as quickly as possible, we bet Ray-Ban is rethinking its poor decision to tie up with an outfit like Meta.
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!
The social media company Meta and the video streaming service YouTube harmed a young user with design features that were addictive and led to her mental health distress, a jury found on Wednesday, a landmark decision that could open social media companies to more lawsuits over users’ well-being.
[…]
Citing features like infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations, K.G.M. sued Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, and Google’s YouTube, claiming they led to anxiety and depression.
For its part, the Wall Street Journal editorial board is standing up for beleaguered social media companies in an editorial today criticizing everything about these verdicts, including this specific means of liability, which it calls a “dodge” around Section 230.
[…]
Product design, though, is a different question. It would be a mistake, I think, to read Section 230 as a blanket allowance for any way platforms wish to use or display users’ posts. (Update: In part, that is because it is a free speech question.) From my entirely layman perspective, it has never struck me as entirely reasonable that the recommendations systems of these platforms should have no duty or expectation of care.
To me, a non-lawyer, much of the actual text of the ruling (PDF) explaining why this lawsuit was not immediately turfed on Section 230 grounds seems pretty reasonable. For example, the judge says “[u]nder the default settings, Meta enables approximately forty types of notifications” for the Instagram app, which the government alleges “is designed to overwhelm young users and compel them repeatedly to reopen Instagram”. We can argue whether this is a meaningful thing for a government to police or if it is just another example of Meta resorting to tacky growth-hacking techniques instead of trusting their product is sufficiently compelling on its own. (Most days when I open Instagram in my browser, it puts a red badge over the notifications tab and suggests I have one new follower. I do not; I never have. It lies to me every time, presumably because it knows most people, including me, will usually click on that, thereby increasing a number on a dashboard somewhere.)
couple weeks back, Jonathan Haidt published another entry in his ongoing campaign to convince the world that social media is inherently ruining kids’ lives. This one was a victory lap titled “Seven Lines of Evidence Against Social Media,” treating recent developments — including the social media addiction verdicts against Meta that most people are misunderstanding — as vindication of his thesis.
Indeed, the research repeatedly suggests that for the very small number of kids who are facing mental health problems and overrelying on social media in response, the answer is a targeted intervention to help those individuals — not a broad “ban kids from social media” program.
Meta, who owns and operates FaceBook and Instagram, has enabled a setting automatically that allows anyone to use your public Instagram photos, profile picture, and/or reels for AI purposes. This includes everything from your posts, stories, stickers, reels, and even your profile photo. Some users may not like this, whether they’re opposed to AI in ... Read More
The social media giant Meta just added a major safety feature to its digital assistant. When younger users have conversations that involve thoughts of suicide or hurting themselves, the company will step in. Instead of just showing crisis hotlines on the screen, the system will now send a direct notification right to a linked parent […]
Meta executives claimed that a controversial facial recognition feature didn’t “exist.” Fast forward a few weeks later, and they’re describing the feature in public — and in detail.
In June, a Wired investigation revealed that Meta had quietly infused unreleased facial recognition tech into its “AI Glasses,” the tech giant’s chatbot and camera-equipped smart glasses. While the feature, dubbed NameTag, was inaccessible to consumers, it was designed to register faces encountered by Meta glasses wearers “into unique biometric signatures, commonly known as faceprints, and check each one against faceprints stored on the user’s phone,” according to the magazine.
Andy Stone, the tech giant’s spokesperson and VP of communications, declared on X that Wired’s reporting was “intellectually dishonest” and “advocacy-driven click bait.” What’s more, according to Stone, NameTag was fully nonexistent.
“Here’s a thing: Wired reports Meta didn’t answer several questions about how this will work,” Stone added in a follow-up post. “How could we? The feature doesn’t exist!”
In response to Stone, another Meta executive, chief technology officer Andrew “Boz” Bosworth, jumped in.
“Incredibly misleading from Wired,” he wrote. “Absolutely dishonest.”
Yet despite company leaders reassuring us that the feature doesn’t exist, Bosworth discussed it in detail during an interview with The Atlantic CEO and podcaster Nick Thompson. Bosworth’s comments in the interview, which was published last week, seemingly contradicted his fellow executives, revealing that the feature did indeed exist.
NameTag, Bosworth told Thompson, would be “encrypted locally to your device,” and would catalog people who smart glasses wearers “met in person, with your glasses on, who introduced themselves, or you said, ‘okay, this is David, remember this person.'”
This information is “only available to you, when you are wearing your glasses,” Bosworth added. He emphasized that the data captured by NameTag wouldn’t be stored in a centralized database.
“This is a person you’ve met before. Here’s their name. They’re right in front of you. That’s… what we call a NameTags feature,” said Bosworth. “I think people get confused because they hear face recognition and they think, ‘oh, there’s a central face database that everyone’s being scanned constantly into.’ It’s not that.”
In addition to supporting blind or low-vision smart glasses wearers, said Bosworth, NameTag could solve what Meta calls “the cocktail party problem,” saving wearers from any awkwardness that may arise when encountering people at parties who they’re sure they’ve met before, but can’t quite place.
“It’s a very universally human problem,” Bosworth said. “Nearly every human I talk to, no matter what their status of their vision or their memory, understands that this is a problem that would help them feel more comfortable in social situations if they had it.”
To be clear, Wired never suggested that the facial recognition feature it uncovered was being used to build a “central face database” by way of Meta’s smart glasses. Indeed, in line with what Bosworth said in the podcast appearance, Wired reported that “code discreetly added to Meta’s AI app over multiple updates this year shows that the feature, internally called ‘NameTag,’ identifies people captured by the glasses’ camera and, when activated, alerts the wearer when it recognizes someone.” The story also repeatedly noted that the feature was unreleased and inaccessible to glasses wearers.
When journalists and others called out the contradiction between Meta’s past and recent statements, Stone — the comms executive who said that Wired couldn’t answer questions about the feature because it “doesn’t exist” — jumped back in the comments section.
“We have said for months we’re exploring such features, even as nothing has shipped to consumers,” the spokesperson said in response to a post by The Intercept journalist Sam Biddle. “No secret there despite the conspiratorial thinking.”
There’s a big difference between a feature not existing and a feature that exists — if still unfinished — and has yet to be released. Meta appears to be arguing that if a feature remains inaccessible to consumers, it’s technically nonexistent, even if the company has gone as far as to issue multiple updates inserting code for the feature into products that are already in consumers’ hands. (Meta quietly deleted the NameTag code after its existence was made public.)
During the podcast interview, Bosworth took care to emphasize that Meta is considering the privacy implications of a facial recognition-powered feature like NameTag. He noted that it’s likely illegal in states like Illinois and Texas, and that it “has to be done in a way that people feel comfortable.”
Meanwhile, Meta continues to fight an ongoing consumer harm lawsuit, prompted by an investigation by a pair of Swedish newspapers. The publications found that Meta collected recordings by smart glasses wearers and passed them along to human data labelers, despite promising consumers that their recordings would be stored only on their devices.
“Designed for privacy,” reads a webpage for Meta’s smart glasses, “controlled by you.”
Meta patented AI tech that constantly analyzes your voice and surroundings in order to detect your emotional state. Finally, exactly what we were all asking for: Meta being granted constant access to our offline lives.
As first caught by Patentlyze, a patent published on July 2 describes a system that records all the user’s “audible communications” and combines it with “contextual factors” like “time of day, location, user activity, or digital interaction.” Audio may be “transcribed, and an emotional-state machine learning model may interpret verbal and nonverbal cues to determine emotional indicators.”
In other words, the system listens to you and everything you do, combines it with other data, and feeds it all to a mood-predicting AI.
“The system increases the precision and reliability of emotional inference by aligning multimodal sensor inputs on synchronized timelines, which creates a novel data structure that supports richer emotional analysis,” reads the patent. “These combined features deliver a technical improvement in automated audio interpretation, enabling continuous emotional monitoring on everyday devices.”
According to the patent, the goal of this extraordinarily intrusive system would be to better tailor users’ workouts to their emotional state, as “personal trainers cannot provide the level of precision in guidance, such as correcting a pose and/or body movement,” as well as Meta’s imagined device could.
It’s not surprising to see Meta pitch this kind of surveillance technology as a fitness device. Health-tracking wearables have become wildly popular, despite the extraordinary amount of physical data about individual consumers they collect and store.
The key difference in Meta’s case, is that rather than crunch biological metrics, it’s an AI-powered fly-on-the-wall attempting to measure a person’s emotional state by listening in on the world around them, and possibly then connecting that information to all other available data.
“The AI assistant may listen to a user(s) at predefined times to hear various types of communication, such as sighs, laughter, and/or the tone(s) of a voice(s),” reads the patent. “The AI assistant may use these inputs to quantify the user’s emotional state or generate other insights about the user.”
The patent also discusses connecting audio inputs to information like when a user takes their medicine, proposing that “the AI assistant may take multiple inputs in addition to audio inputs (e.g., of a user’s voice) to provide a summary of emotional trends based on various inputs (e.g., a happier emotional state associated with a particular time of day or at a time when medication is taken, etc.)”
It’s worth noting that fellow tech giant Amazon tried and failed to market a similar system. In 2020, the company launched the Halo Band, a fitness band with a built-in microphone that was designed to listen in on users and conduct what Amazon described as a “tone of voice analysis.” Following public backlash in 2021, Amazon nuked the microphones when it launched a next-generation version of the band. It discontinued the product line altogether in 2023.
Whether we’ll ever see Meta attempt to launch a similar mood-tracking device is unclear. In a statement to 404 Media, a Meta spokesperson said that “like other companies, patents at Meta are often filed to disclose concepts that may or may not be implemented, and a granted patent does not guarantee that Meta has pursued or will pursue the technology described.”
The existence of the patent, though, shows that such a device is certainly on Meta’s mind — and is yet another Meta-made product that stands to strengthen the bridge between our online and offline worlds.
A nova ferramenta Muse Image, da Meta, vem ativada por defeito em todos os perfis públicos de adultos no Instagram, e qualquer pessoa pode usar as suas fotos para gerar imagens com inteligência artificial sem que seja avisado. Eis como travar isto em menos de um minuto.
Entre as novidades anunciadas pela OpenAI e pela Meta estão mais controlos para os pais, mecanismos de segurança reforçados e ferramentas concebidas para adaptar a experiência aos utilizadores mais jovens.
Ofcom concerned TikTok’s age verification is ineffective, leaving some exposed to posts on suicide, self-harm and pornography
TikTok is under formal investigation over concerns it has failed to protect children from harmful content, the UK’s online regulator, Ofcom, has announced.
The social media platform’s approach to checking the ages of users has sparked “particular concerns” at the watchdog, almost a year after measures to protect children from the worst of online content came into effect under the Online Safety Act.
Twenty-six current and former Meta employees allege AI-assisted productivity metrics unfairly influenced layoff decisions affecting workers on protected leave. Meta denies the claims.
Lawsuit filed by dozens of employees says people who took maternity or disability leave were disproportionately selected for layoffs
Dozens of Meta employees have sued the social media company over claims that it used artificial intelligence tools to tag workers for mass layoffs. The workers allege that those AI tools targeted them after they asked for protected or maternity leave or disability accommodation.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in the northern district of California, points to Meta’s workforce reduction of about 8,000 employees earlier this year. Meta is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The suit alleges that Meta used a “constellation of internal artificial intelligence systems”, including AI performance ratings and keystroke- and activity-monitoring data, to pinpoint who to lay off.
These days, corporations aren’t just using AI as an excuse to justify layoffs, but are increasingly turning to their chatbots for advice deciding who to fire.
As Reuters reports, 26 Meta employees filed a lawsuit accusing the company of using an internal AI platform to select targets for the thousands of jobs cut earlier this year. Per the suit, Meta used its AI to cull workers based on opaque productivity metrics and large language model (LLM) token usage, a move which disproportionately targeted people with disabilities, and those who had taken maternity or medical leave — literally adding insult to injury.
The 26 plaintiffs, whose names have been redacted from the suit, include engineers, managers, researchers, and designers, as well as a director who had direct access to the AI platform.
Nearly half of the plaintiffs say that their termination was the result of taking either maternity or parental leave, protected activities which Meta’s AI-integrated human resources platform “Checkpoint” allegedly failed to take into consideration. Others claim to have been targeted after taking medical leave for their own disabilities, bereavement leave, or to care for family members.
In some cases, plaintiffs allege to have been specifically warned by Meta leadership not to take time off. The anonymous director, for example, says he was “discouraged and deterred from taking FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] leave that his treating provider had recommended, out of a well-founded and objective concern from a manager that such a leave would be held against him in the [reduction in force].”
In the suit, the director corroborates the claim that Meta’s Checkpoint used protected leaves of absence against workers, arguing that the platform “failed to distinguish employees’ leave from lack of engagement.”
The current complaint seeks to block Meta from laying off the 26 plaintiffs, who will each have to file an independent suit owing to legal agreements with the company, Reuters reports.
In a statement, a Meta spokesperson disputed the basic facts of the case.
“Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI,” the spokesperson told Reuters.
Login
